Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals

No. 185

Thursday, March 12, 2015

10:00 a.m.



Prayers
Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— No. 412-4761 concerning federal programs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-75-03;
— Nos. 412-4782, 412-4808, 412-4812, 412-4861, 412-4871, 412-4911, 412-4935, 412-5026 and 412-5027 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-34.

Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) presented the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum, held in Washington, D.C., on December 2 and 3, 2013. — Sessional Paper No. 8565-412-50-16.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound), from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented the Fourth Report of the Committee, "Review of the Canadian Transportation Safety Regime: Transportation of Dangerous Goods and Safety Management Systems". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-189.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 3, 4, 6, 18 to 25, 27 to 40 and 42 to 46) was tabled.


Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound), from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented the Fifth Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (C), 2014-15 — Votes 1c and 10c under TRANSPORT, and Vote 3c under WINDSOR-DETROIT BRIDGE AUTHORITY). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-190.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 47) was tabled.


Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound), from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented the Sixth Report of the Committee (Main Estimates 2015-16 — Vote 1 under CANADA POST CORPORATION, Vote 1 under CANADIAN AIR TRANSPORT SECURITY AUTHORITY, Vote 1 under CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, Vote 1 under MARINE ATLANTIC INC., Votes 1, 5 and 10 under OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA, Vote 1 under THE FEDERAL BRIDGE CORPORATION LIMITED, Vote 1 under THE JACQUES-CARTIER AND CHAMPLAIN BRIDGES INC., Votes 1, 5 and 10 under TRANSPORT, Vote 1 under VIA RAIL CANADA INC., and Vote 1 under WINDSOR-DETROIT BRIDGE AUTHORITY). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-191.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 47) was tabled.


Mr. Kent (Thornhill), from the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented the Eighth Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (C), 2014-15 — Vote 1c under COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT, and Vote 1c under NATIONAL DEFENCE). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-192.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 51) was tabled.


Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas), seconded by Mr. Cash (Davenport), Bill C-658, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to reduce the incidence of concussions in amateur sport, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.


Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by Mr. Warawa (Langley), one concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (No. 412-5091);
— by Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain), one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 412-5092);
— by Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville), one concerning appointments (No. 412-5093);
— by Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta), one concerning health care services (No. 412-5094), two concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (Nos. 412-5095 and 412-5096) and one concerning a national child care program (No. 412-5097);
— by Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands), one concerning crimes of violence (No. 412-5098);
— by Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-5099) and one concerning China (No. 412-5100).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-958, Q-961, Q-978, Q-996, Q-1001, Q-1002 and Q-1014 on the Order Paper.


Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the revised return to the following question made into an Order for Return:

Q-738 — Mr. Bevington (Northwest Territories) — With regard to the government's support for the development and use of renewable energy for each year between 2006 and 2014 inclusive, what were the government's expenditures, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) department or agency, (iii) program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-738-01.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-938 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to the government’s efforts from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, to promote Canadian energy exports: (a) what is the estimated dollar value of the government’s efforts and initiatives to support or expand Canadian energy exports (i) in Canada, (ii) in individual government diplomatic offices outside Canada, (iii) in other locations visited by government officials, designated contractors, consultants, or other individuals involved in supporting or expanding Canadian energy exports; (b) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value, broken down by the type of energy directly concerned, namely, (i) direct exports of coal, (ii) oil (including, but not limited to, bitumen, condensate, and other petroleum products), (iii) natural gas, (iv) export or construction of infrastructure associated with fossil fuels or the export of energy generated from fossil fuels (e.g., pipelines or export terminals for liquefied natural gas), (v) export of technologies or services associated with fossil fuels or the energy generated from fossil fuels, (vi) export of energy generated from renewable sources (including, but not limited to, hydropower, solar power, wind power, biomass, and geothermal power), (vii) export or construction of infrastructure associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., transmission lines to carry hydroelectric power), (viii) export of technologies or services associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., solar module manufacturing technologies), (ix) export of infrastructure, technologies and services associated with energy conservation and energy efficiency (e.g., smart grids or more efficient industrial process design engineering), (x) other types of energy export support that do not correspond to the categories above (e.g., general energy export advice or activities to support the construction of a transmission line expected to carry electricity generated from multiple sources); (c) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value, broken down by (i) location where costs were incurred, (ii) department or agency that incurred those costs; (d) what is the estimated dollar value of all government employee time used to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the following activities, (i) planning meetings and briefings, (ii) monitoring issues, (iii) preparing materials, (iv) offering logistical coordination, (v) planning visits by delegations, (vi) providing training, (vii) undertaking research, (viii) engaging with representatives, (ix) engaging in communications activities and preparing communications materials, (x) engaging with members of the public, (xi) meeting with stakeholders, (xii) any other uses of government employee or contractor time; (e) how much money has the government spent on the purchase of advertisements to support or expand energy exports, and how much government staff time was required to develop such advertisements, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (f) what contractor services, including advertising firms, government relations firms, legal firms, or other professional service providers, has the government retained to support or expand energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (g) what is the cost of all hospitality (including, but not limited to, food, catering, beverages, and location rentals) to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (h) how much has been spent reimbursing travel and accommodation expenditures for (i) non-government employees, (ii) government employees, to support or expand Canada’s energy exports broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); and (i) what is the total estimated value of any other government efforts to promote Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-938.

Q-939 — Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — With regard to the Health Canada decision not to certify citronella-based insect repellents: (a) what studies comparing the toxicity of insect repellents containing DEET with repellents containing citronella does Health Canada have at its disposal, and what are the findings of these studies; (b) during its citronella safety assessment, what groups did Health Canada consult to obtain scientific opinions; (c) did Health Canada receive solicited or unsolicited opinions, studies or documents from groups or scientists about the safety or toxicity of citronella used in insect repellent products and, if so, (i) from what groups or scientists did it receive them, (ii) on what date were these documents received, (iii) what were the findings of these documents; and (d) has Health Canada considered, or does it intend to consider, the possibility of creating a new category of products that would distinguish between chemical-based insect repellents and natural insect repellents, thereby allowing for the development of a separate safety certification process for natural products? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-939.

Q-940 — Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) — With regard to Canada Post and its equipment renewal for community mailboxes, further to the answer to question Q-471, obtained on June 5, 2014: (a) what were the reasons for selecting a new mailbox model and ordering 100 000 of them between 2014 and 2016; (b) is the mailbox model produced by Florence Manufacturing patented or licensed and, if so, (i) under what jurisdiction, (ii) is the patent or licence legally binding in Canada, (iii) could a Canadian company have acquired the patent or licence to produce the same model as the one produced by Florence Manufacturing; (c) if the model is not patented or licensed, (i) what regulations forbid or make it impossible for a Canadian company to acquire the patent or licence, (ii) does Canada Post know which companies have the licences required to produce the mailboxes and, if so, what are their names, (iii) what reasons led Canada Post to restrict the tendering process to companies that hold the patent or licence in question; (d) does Canada Post intend to use the same selection criteria for its next tendering process, expected in January 2015, for long-term mailbox production; (e) what reasons led Canada Post to choose new selection criteria; (f) was a study carried out to determine the reasons mentioned in (e), including forecasts for increased parcel delivery, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) what factors did contribute to determining the criteria for producing new mailboxes; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, (i) when was this study commissioned, (ii) when was this study completed, (iii) what are the details; (h) does Canada Post have a division or resources dedicated to research and development; (i) did Canada Post try to develop a prototype or prototypes together with its Canadian partners that would respond to the new selection criteria and, if so, what are the details concerning these prototypes; (j) if the answer to (i) is not in the affirmative, why not; and (k) if the prototypes mentioned in (i) do exist, (i) did Canada Post help fund these development projects, (ii) what were the costs, (iii) what were the development timelines, (iv) were they evaluated by Canada Post, (v) what was the content and what were the conclusions of these evaluations, (vi) were these prototypes pilot-tested in Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-940.

Q-941 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to diplomatic postings by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: (a) what is the total number of vacancies in diplomatic postings; (b) which positions are vacant; (c) how long have each of the positions identified in (b) been vacant; (d) at which stage of the recruitment and posting process are the positions identified in (b); (e) what is the average length of time taken to fill a diplomatic posting in each of the last five calendar years; (f) what percentage of diplomatic postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; (g) what percentage of ambassadorial postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; and (h) what percentage of diplomatic postings requires ministerial approval? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-941.

Q-942 — Ms. Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île) — With regard to Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs) filed by individuals subject to removal from Canada, for each year from 2011: (a) how many PRRAs were submitted; (b) how many were approved; (c) how many were denied; (d) of those denied, how many were on the grounds of (i) posing a danger to the public of Canada, (ii) posing a danger to the security of Canada, (iii) administrative reasons, (iv) other reasons; (e) what were the countries of return of the persons applying for PRRAs, both approved and denied; (f) how many PRRA applicants (i) were subject to an extradition order, (ii) were advancing a refugee claim, (iii) had a PRRA rejected and did not leave Canada; and (g) what are the titles of employees at Citizenship and Immigration Canada responsible for deciding the outcomes of PRRAs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-942.

Q-944 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to government funding allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay: (a) what is the total amount allocated in fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount; and (b) what funding projects were approved under FedNor between 2011 and 2014 inclusively, and what was their value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-944.

Q-945 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With respect to the drafting of the new liability provisions in Bill C-46, Pipeline Safety Act: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to the creation of this legislation; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process before the creation of this legislation; (c) other than Natural Resources Canada, what other departments were involved or consulted in the creation of this legislation; (d) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted before the creation of this legislation; (e) who proposed the $1 billion limit for absolute liability; (f) who proposed that this legislation apply only to pipelines with the capacity to transport at least 250 000 barrels of oil per day; and (g) what evidence was used to determine that $1 billion would be sufficient to clean up a spill? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-945.

Q-946 — Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth) — With respect to the government’s knowledge of rendition, detention and interrogation activities: (a) is the government aware of the existence of the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Detention and Interrogation Program (the Program) and, if so, (i) when was the government made aware of it, (ii) who had such knowledge, (iii) what was the extent of that knowledge; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, has the government sent observers within the Program, or to act as a liaison between the Program and any government department, agency or intelligence entity; (c) at any point, has Canada been one of the “other nations” from which the Program “required secrecy and cooperation”, according to the United States Select Committee on Intelligence’s Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, released in December 2014 (the Study); (d) has the government been aware of the role of “contract psychologists” in the design and execution of CIA torture programs, as revealed by the Study and, if so, is there record of anyone in Canada being a contract psychologist; (e) has the government been aware of the existence of a CIA detention and interrogation site known as Detention Site COBALT (the Site) and, if so, (i) when was the government made aware of it, (ii) who had such knowledge, (iii) what was the extent of that knowledge; (f) did the government send any employees or contractors to (i) observe activity within the Site, (ii) transfer persons to the Site, (iii) assist in the transfer of persons to the Site, (iv) learn of the transfer to the Site of persons who had, at any point, been in the custody of or detained by Canadian armed force personnel; (g) when the Program was terminated, was the government aware that, in Afghanistan, the National Directorate of Security (NDS) would serve as the continuation of the Program in close collaboration with the CIA; and (h) after the invasion of Iraq by forces of the United States and other countries in 2003, did any Canadian official, discuss with a person or persons employed by the Pentagon or by the U.S. Secretary of State for Defense the subject of collaboration in Afghanistan, most notably in Kandahar province, by Canadian armed forces personnel, notably special forces personnel, with US armed force personnel or the CIA in the capture and transfer of persons into CIA or NDS custody by, or with the involvement of, Canadian armed forces personnel? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-946.

Q-962 — Mr. Bevington (Northwest Territories) — With respect to the Northern Greenhouse Initiative, and specifically the Call for Expressions of Interest to access funding that closed on September 30, 2014: (a) what are the names and addresses of all those who submitted applications; (b) what were the complete terms of reference for this call for expressions of interest; (c) what are the complete evaluation criteria to be used; and (d) what are the titles or positions of those who will evaluate the applications? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-962.

Q-972 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Space Agency since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-972.

Q-974 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Industry Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-974.

Q-998 — Ms. St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain) — With regard to Statistics Canada: what are the details of all custom tabulations or data sets prepared for or at the request of any government department, agency, office, crown corporation, or other government body, since January 1, 2010, broken down by (i) the nature or description of the custom tabulation or data set, (ii) the date on which it was requested, (iii) the reason or purpose for which it was requested, (iv) the department, agency, office, crown corporation, or other government body making the request? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-998.

Q-999 — Ms. St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain) — With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Library and Archives Canada since March 31, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-999.

Q-1013 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to the Venture Capital Action Plan for the fiscal years 2012-2013 to the current fiscal year: (a) of the commitment to invest $400 million in the Venture Capital Action Plan over 7 to 10 years, how much has been invested; (b) of the commitment to invest $250 million in new, large private sector-led national funds of funds, (i) what outcomes have been achieved, (ii) what are the names of the funds, (iii) how much money has been received so far; (c) of the $100 million commitment to recapitalize existing venture capital funds, how much has been invested, broken down by fund; (d) of the commitment to make an aggregate investment of $50 million in 3 to 5 high-performing funds, how much has been invested, broken down by fund; (e) what “additional resources” have been invested to continue developing a robust venture capital system and a strong entrepreneurial culture in Canada; (f) how many companies have applied for funding; (g) what is the total amount of funding that has been given out, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (h) how many companies have been rejected for funding, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (i) what is the success rate of funding applications, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (j) what is the total amount of funding, broken down by application category of (i) clean tech and energy efficiency, (ii) information technology, (iii) healthcare; (k) what is the success rate of applications by application category of (i) clean tech and energy efficiency, (ii) information technology, (iii) healthcare; and (l) what is the average amount of funding granted, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1013.
Government Orders

Notice having been given at a previous sitting under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Mr. Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), moved, — That, in relation to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, the House proceeded to the question period regarding the moving of the time allocation motion.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:

(Division No. 352 -- Vote no 352)
YEAS: 134, NAYS: 109

YEAS -- POUR

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Aspin
Barlow
Bateman
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Boughen
Braid
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement

Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Eglinski
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)

Lake
Lauzon
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Raitt
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford

Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Loan
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 134

NAYS -- CONTRE

Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin

Crowder
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest-Jourdain
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)

Hsu
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel

Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Sullivan
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vaughan

Total: -- 109

PAIRED -- PAIRÉS

Nil--Aucun

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), seconded by Mrs. Wong (Minister of State (Seniors)), — That Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The debate continued.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), seconded by Mrs. Wong (Minister of State (Seniors)), — That Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The debate continued.

Private Members' Business

At 6:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Bill C-641, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), seconded by Ms. Ashton (Churchill), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Adjournment Proceedings

At 7:01 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 7:19 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).